P2 Locomotive Company and related matters

Bantam Chick!

 

Learn something new everyday!

 

Hey! Whaddabout mee?!

 

Or BSA Bantam.

Richard.

 

Oh, for pity's sake... here we go again.

 

Before the Trust had announced a decision about a name there was scope for discussion of what it could be, even if some of the discussion was on the silly side. Now that the name has been announced we can say whether we approve or not (if we care at all) but where is the sense in new suggestions?

 

It`s just for fun I guess

 

Never liked the endless Bantam Permutations, for that reason I never Mentioned 'Billy Bantam' ( the Bradford City mascot).
Having given the P2 a miss (Was never going to be short of donations that one) i might have to dig into my ( rapidly emptying) pockets for this which i sadly predict will be the last successful new build.

 

I hope not - there's a P1, L1, W1 and U1 to add first....

 

The earlier, rather more interesting water tube varient, one trusts? I'm sure the level of expertise brought to bear on No.2007 could solve the odd teething problems encountered before HNG threw in the towel and went all "stretched A4".

 

• P1: roughly the same level of 'use' as a 'Night Owl' would be (let's not go there, eh?)
• L1: can't see anyone building a Thompson "concrete mixer" when there are other interesting tanks in the pipeline - but it's definitely one for Simon to build
• W1: I once suggested that to David Elliot and the response I got was short, but amounted to 'no'.
• U1: errrr, okay...

 

deleted

 

Ooh, a Maunsell 4-4-0, a three cylinder mogul and a small-wheeled 2-6-4 tank engine - works for me

Tom

 

Blimey. Just the thought of that concept would be enough to bring any engineer out in a cold sweat!
Is there any manufacturer, anywhere in the world which is remotely capable of producing a pair of Admiralty type 3-drum boilers? Not to mention the idea of getting main line certification for something operating at 450psi. Of course, not forgetting the poor devils who would be responsible for tube cleaning and maintenance.
The Yarrow boilers, without doubt, had superb steam-raising capabilities, particularly when oil fired, but were completely misplaced in a railway locomotive, brave though the concept was, it was a leap too far.
Now, an LMS Turbomotive....

 

I like the sound of that.

 

(You're just going to have to imagine my best Darth Vader impression here) "I find your lack of faith disturbing". How long ago was it President Doughnut spoke about choosing to do things not because they are easy? I, of course, would be watching from a very safe distance!

Now if you crossed your turbomotive idea with all adhesion bogies ....

 

Irony, mostly.... the W1 would be a fascinating technical / industrial archeology exercise in its original form. And the U1 would settle any arguments about 'big chufferits', though as Tom suggests, I'd prefer a Southern U1, Z and 700, but that's for another thread.

And as for Turbomotive, I'd LOVE to see that - it'd be utterly fascinating.

 

The original W1 boiler lasted well into the preservation era but not into the new build era, unfortunately. It would indeed have made an fascinating project

 

No kidding? What had it been used for since 1936?

 

“After the rebuild, the water-tube boiler was returned to Darlington and used for pressure testing and space heating between 1939 and 1965. It was finally cut-up on 10th April 1965, outliving the Rebuilt W1 by almost six years.”
​

Source: https://www.lner.info/locos/W/w1.php

Tom